Talk:The Greek Myths/Mac attack

Scotch vs. Scots -- a peripheral issue

Summary: Tashkop called me "Mac", which I found peculiar. He apologized. Pmanderson explained that part of the issue might be that I am not "Scotch". Tashkop questioned the usage of "Scotch"... and here's the rest. I have moved it to a separate subpage because it has no relevance to the The Greek Myths article. --Macrakis 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cut out this "Mac" attack? It may not be ad hominem argument, but it is bizarre; is it intended as familiar or offensive? Either way, it is not welcome. --Macrakis 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...

Macrakis - It was not my intention to cause offence with your name. Shortening of names is not considered bizarre within my cultural context and I apologise if I have caused offence or behaved in a manner that your own cultural context considers to be overly familiar.Tashkop 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the offense here is that Macrakis is not Scotch, as his user page would show - another part is that some Scots would object to having a nickname forced on them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As offensive perhaps as it might be to have a third party buy into someone else's issue? I beleive that I have apologised once already. Tashkop 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(And since we are being so sensitive about such matters) Scotch BTW is an alcoholic drink - the enthnicity that you are reaching for is 'Scots' or 'Scottish'Tashkop 04:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please read the OED entry for Scotch: the use of Scots as a general-purpose adjective, aside from the few specialized usages as a post-positive, like law Scots or pound Scots, is a mid-nineteenth century piece of nationalism, not even reflected in Canadian usage (which John Kenneth Galbraith's book, The Scotch discusses at some length; he is of course a native speaker). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A native speaker of scotch? I wonder what language you are referring to. My laws inform me that several million in their assorted clans disagree. Scotch is an americanism. Tashkop 19:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Scot, and a native speaker of Canadian English. I cite the OED 's essay on the subject in full as the next section; their first citation (as meaning an inhabitant of Scotland), is from Albion's England, published 1606, a year before the settlement of Jamestown, Virginia. How exactly a form used by Burns and Scott can be an Americanism, except in the pædantry of the half-educated, I await Tashkop's explication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch

The three forms of the adj., Scotch, Scottish, Scots, are still current, with some difference in use, which, however, is somewhat unsettled. Down to the middle of the 16th c. the only form used in southern English was Scottish; but in the dialect of Scotland (and in that of the north of England in the 14th and 15th c.) the form was Scottis (cf. Inglis = English), subsequently contracted to Scots. So far as our quotations show, the contraction of Scottish into Scotch is not recorded before 1570 (in the compound Scotchman), though the colloquial pronunciation which it represents may well be much older; instances of Scotch cap, Scotch jig occur in 1591-99, but the adj. did not become common in literature until the second half of the 17th c. From that time until the 19th c. Scotch has been the prevailing form in England, though Scottish has always been in use as a more formal synonym. In Scotland, the authors who wrote in dialect (down to Ramsay and Fergusson early in the 18th c.) used Scots, while those who anglicized adopted the form Scottish. But before the end of the 18th c. Scotch had been adopted into the northern vernacular; it is used regularly by Burns, and subsequently by Scott; still later, it appears even in official language in the title of the ‘Scotch Education Office’. Since the mid 19th c. there has been in Scotland a growing tendency to discard this form altogether, Scottish, or less frequently Scots, being substituted. At the beginning of the 20th c., while in England Scotch was the ordinary colloquial word, the literary usage prefered Scottish in applications relating to the nation or the country at large or its institutions or characteristics. Thus it was usual to speak of ‘Scottish literature’, ‘Scottish history’, ‘the Scottish character’, ‘a Scottish lawyer’, ‘the Scottish border’. On the other hand, it would have sounded affected to say ‘a Scottish girl’, ‘a Scottish gardener.’ Although ‘the Scottish dialect’ is now the usual designation, it is seldom that Scottish is used as a n. instead of Scotch. Recent usage favours Scots in ‘Scots law’, and it is now almost universal in historical references to money, as ‘a pound Scots’.

 In the 20th c. the word Scotch has been falling into disuse in England as well as in Scotland, out of deference to the Scotsman's supposed dislike of it; except for certain fixed collocations, (such as ‘Scotch mist’, ‘Scotch whisky’) Scottish (less frequently Scots) is now the usual adjective, and to designate the inhabitants of Scotland the pl. n. Scots is preferred (see Gowers/Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage (1965)).] -OED, sub vocem.

It requires no explication - Septentrionalis has answered his/herself. Scotch fell into disuse in the 20th century. Clue: We are now living in the 21st century. As to Septentrionalis' other point. Since the Scots used the word scotch in the 1600's does that mean that we should all speak Shakesperan english and count it as correct? Answer = No, except perhaps in the pedantry of the over-educated. Tashkop 19:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]